Skip to Content Facebook Feature Image

House backs bill to speed permitting reviews for new energy and infrastructure projects

News

House backs bill to speed permitting reviews for new energy and infrastructure projects
News

News

House backs bill to speed permitting reviews for new energy and infrastructure projects

2025-12-19 05:18 Last Updated At:12-22 16:38

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House approved legislation Thursday aimed at speeding up permitting reviews for new energy and infrastructure projects that now take five or more years to complete, as lawmakers seek to meet growing demand for electricity and other forms of energy.

The bill, dubbed the SPEED Act, would also limit judicial review as Congress seeks to enact the most significant change in decades to the National Environmental Policy Act, a bedrock environmental law that requires federal agencies to consider a project’s possible environmental impacts before it is approved.

The bill was approved, 221-196, and now goes to the Senate.

Republicans and many Democrats believe the 55-year-old environmental policy law has become mired in red tape that routinely results in years-long delays for major projects. The law requires detailed analysis for major projects and allows for public comments before approvals are issued. A recent study found that environmental reviews often total nearly 600 pages and take nearly five years to complete.

The House bill would place statutory limits on environmental reviews, broaden the scope of actions that don’t require review and set clear deadlines. It also limits who can bring legal challenges and legal remedies that courts can impose.

“The SPEED Act is a focused, bipartisan effort to restore common sense and accountability to federal permitting,'' said Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Arkansas, the bill's chief sponsor.

While NEPA was passed “with the best of intentions,” it has become unwieldly in the decades since, said Westerman, who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee and has long pushed for permitting reform.

"Unfortunately, what was meant to facilitate responsible development has been twisted into a bureaucratic bottleneck that delays investments in the infrastructure and technologies that make our country run,'' Westerman said Thursday on the House floor.

Democrats agreed that the permitting process has become unwieldy, but said the House bill does not address the real causes of delay and undercuts public input and participation while overly restricting judicial review.

“The SPEED Act treats environmental reviews as a nuisance rather than a tool to prevent costly, harmful mistakes," said California Rep. Jared Huffman, the top Democrat on the Natural Resources panel.

“Weakening environmental review won’t fix permitting challenges (and) won’t help us build the clean energy future that we need,” Huffman said. "Gutting NEPA only invites more risk, more mistakes, more litigation, more damage to communities that already face too many environmental burdens.”

Eleven Democrats voted for the bill, while one Republican, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, opposed it.

Huffman and other critics also complained that the bill could harm wind and solar projects that ae being shut down by the Trump administration. A last-minute change this week allows the administration to continue to block some offshore wind projects, bending to demands by conservatives who oppose offshore wind.

The American Clean Power Association, which represents wind developers, pulled its support for the bill because of the changes, which were demanded by Republican Reps. Andy Harris of Maryland and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey.

The GOP amendment “fundamentally changed legislation that represented genuine bipartisan progress on permitting reform,'' said Jason Grumet, the group's CEO. “It’s disappointing that a partisan amendment .... has now jeopardized that progress, turning what should have been a win for American energy into another missed opportunity.”

Harris, who chairs the conservative House Freedom Caucus, defended the change, which he said “will protect legal actions the Trump administration has taken thus far to combat the Biden offshore wind agenda,” including a project in Maryland that the administration has moved to block.

Westerman called the change minor and said that without it, "we probably would not have gotten permitting reform done.”

Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, the bill's co-sponsor, said lawmakers from both parties have long agreed that “America’s broken permitting system is delaying investments in the basics we need — energy, transportation and housing.”

Support for the measure "gives me hope that Congress is finally ready to take the win'' on permitting reform, Golden said.

Business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, hailed the vote.

“Permitting reform is not just a business issue — it is a national priority,'' said Rodney Davis, senior vice president for government affairs.

“Delays in project approvals hinder economic development, increase costs for consumers and undermine America’s ability to build and maintain critical infrastructure," Davis said. “Modernizing this process will enable timely construction of projects that deliver affordable and reliable energy ... expand broadband connectivity (and) strengthen our ability to compete in the global race for AI innovation."

Environmental groups said the bill undermines a fundamental environmental law while empowering the Trump administration to quickly permit polluting projects without adequate review.

“We urgently need to build the infrastructure necessary to address the climate crisis and to transition to a clean energy economy, but this bill is not the solution," said Stephen Schima, a senior lawyer for Earthjustice Action.

“Far from helping build the clean energy projects of the future, the SPEED Act will only result in an abundance of contaminated air and water, dirty projects and chronic illnesses, with fewer opportunities to hold polluters accountable in court," he said.

House approval of the permitting measure shifts focus to the Senate, where a broader deal that includes changes to the Clean Water Act to facilitate pipeline projects and transmission lines is being considered.

Democrats, including Sens. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, also are pursuing legislation to make it harder for President Donald Trump to cancel permits for clean-energy projects.

FILE - Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., speaks as the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure works to advance the Water Resources Development Act of 2022, on Capitol Hill in Washington, May 18, 2022. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib, File)

FILE - Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., speaks as the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure works to advance the Water Resources Development Act of 2022, on Capitol Hill in Washington, May 18, 2022. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib, File)

FILE - Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Ark., center, chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, delivers remarks as the House Rules Committee prepares the GOP signature energy package, the "Lower Energy Costs Act," for action on the floor, at the Capitol in Washington, March 27, 2023. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

FILE - Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Ark., center, chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, delivers remarks as the House Rules Committee prepares the GOP signature energy package, the "Lower Energy Costs Act," for action on the floor, at the Capitol in Washington, March 27, 2023. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

FILE - Cars drive past data centers that house computer servers and hardware required to support modern internet use, such as artificial intelligence, in Ashburn, Virginia, July 16, 2023. (AP Photo/Ted Shaffrey, File)

FILE - Cars drive past data centers that house computer servers and hardware required to support modern internet use, such as artificial intelligence, in Ashburn, Virginia, July 16, 2023. (AP Photo/Ted Shaffrey, File)

LONDON (AP) — U.S. President Donald Trump and his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have been damning of the U.K.'s naval capabilities. Their jibes may have stung in a country with a long and proud maritime history, but they do carry some substance.

The U.K. has been at the forefront of Trump’s ire since the onset of the Iran war on Feb. 28, when British Prime Minister Keir Starmer refused to grant the U.S. military access to British bases.

Though that decision has been partly reversed with the decision to permit the U.S. to use the bases, including that of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, for so-called defensive purposes, Trump is adamant he was let down. He has repeatedly lashed out at Starmer and branded the Royal Navy’s two aircraft carriers as “toys.”

“You don’t even have a navy,” he told Britain's Daily Telegraph in comments published Wednesday. "You’re too old and had aircraft carriers that didn’t work.”

Hegseth, meanwhile, said sarcastically that the “big, bad Royal Navy” should get involved in making the Strait of Hormuz safe for commercial shipping.

For numerous reasons, the Royal Navy is not as big and bad as it used it to be when Britannia ruled the waves. But it's not as feeble as Trump and Hegseth imply and is largely similar with the French navy, which it is often compared with.

“On the negative side, there is a grain of truth, with the Royal Navy being smaller than it has been in hundreds of years,” said professor Kevin Rowlands, editor of the Royal United Services Institute Journal. “On the positive side, the Royal Navy would say that it’s entering its first period of growth since World War II, with more ships set to be built than in decades.”

It’s not that long ago that Britain could muster a task force of 127 ships, including two aircraft carriers, to sail to the south Atlantic after Argentina’s invasion of the Falkland Islands. That 1982 campaign, which then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan was lukewarm about, marked the final hurrah of Britain’s naval pedigree.

Nothing on that scale, or even remotely, could be accomplished now. Since World War II, Britain’s combat-ready fleet has declined substantially, much of it linked to changing military and technological advances and the end of empire. But not all.

The number of vessels in the Royal Navy fleet, including aircraft carriers, destroyers frigates and submarines has fallen from 166 in 1975 to 66 in 2025, according to The Associated Press' analysis of figures from the Ministry of Defense and the House of Commons Library.

Though the Royal Navy has two aircraft carriers at its command, there was a seven-year period in the 2010s when it had none. And the number of destroyers has halved to six while the frigate fleet has been slashed from 60 to just 11.

The Royal Navy faced criticism for the time it took to send the HMS Dragon destroyer to the Middle East after the war with Iran broke out. Though naval officials worked night and day to get it shipshape for a different mission than the one it was readying for, to many it symbolized the extent to which Britain’s military has been gutted since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

For much of the Cold War, Britain was spending between 4% and 8% of its annual national income on its military. After the Cold War, that proportion steadily dropped to a low of 1.9% of GDP in 2018, fuel to Trump's fire.

Like other countries, Britain, largely under the Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, sought to use the so-called “peace dividend” following the collapse of the Soviet Union to divert money earmarked for defense to other priorities, such as health and education.

And the austerity measures imposed by the Conservative-led government in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008-9 prevented any pickup in defense spending despite the clear signs of a resurgent Russia, especially after its annexation of Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine.

In the wake of Russia's full-blown invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and with another Middle East war underway, there's a growing understanding across the political divide that the cuts have gone too far.

Following the Ukraine invasion, the Conservatives started to turn the military spending tide around. Since the Labour Party returned to power in 2024, Starmer is seeking to ramp up British defense spending, partly at the cost of cutting the country's long-vaunted aid spending.

Starmer has promised to raise U.K. defense spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product by 2027, and the updated goal is now for it to rise to 3.5% of GDP by 2035, as part of a NATO agreement pushed by Trump. That, in plain terms, will mean tens of billions pounds more being spent — a lot more kit for the armed forces.

The pressure is on for the government to speed that schedule up. But with the public finances further imperilled by the economic consequences of the Iran war, it's not clear where any additional money will come.

The jibes will likely keep coming even though the critiques are unfair and far from the truth, said RUSI's Rowlands, who was a captain in the Royal Navy.

“We are dealing with an administration that doesn’t do nuance," he said.

This story has been corrected to show there were 166 vessels in 1975, not 466.

An artillery piece from the 1982 Falklands War between Argentina and Britain lies on Mount Longdon on the Falkland Islands, also known as Islas Malvinas, Monday, March 16, 2026. (AP Photo/Ricardo Mazalan)

An artillery piece from the 1982 Falklands War between Argentina and Britain lies on Mount Longdon on the Falkland Islands, also known as Islas Malvinas, Monday, March 16, 2026. (AP Photo/Ricardo Mazalan)

FILE - The Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales is pictured before its port call in Tokyo, Thursday, Aug. 28, 2025. (AP Photo/Eugene Hoshiko, File)

FILE - The Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales is pictured before its port call in Tokyo, Thursday, Aug. 28, 2025. (AP Photo/Eugene Hoshiko, File)

FILE - Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer speaks to Royal Marines onboard the HMS ST Albans in Oslo, during his visit to Norway on Friday, May 9, 2025.(AP Photo/Alastair Grant, Pool, File)

FILE - Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer speaks to Royal Marines onboard the HMS ST Albans in Oslo, during his visit to Norway on Friday, May 9, 2025.(AP Photo/Alastair Grant, Pool, File)

FILE - Indonesian soldiers stand guard as Royal Navy offshore patrol vessel HMS Spey is docked at Tanjung Priok Port during a port visit in Jakarta, Indonesia, Wednesday, Jan. 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Tatan Syuflana, File)

FILE - Indonesian soldiers stand guard as Royal Navy offshore patrol vessel HMS Spey is docked at Tanjung Priok Port during a port visit in Jakarta, Indonesia, Wednesday, Jan. 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Tatan Syuflana, File)

FILE - Crews walk near the Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales before its port call in Tokyo Thursday, Aug. 28, 2025. (AP Photo/Eugene Hoshiko, File)

FILE - Crews walk near the Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales before its port call in Tokyo Thursday, Aug. 28, 2025. (AP Photo/Eugene Hoshiko, File)

Recommended Articles